Matt Walsh has an epically good article on why we should fear having the same folks who freaked out over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" running the Interntet
Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category.
The media loves to talk about the joys of bipartisanship, but libertarians run for the hills whenever we hear that word. Because it means that true legislative suckage is probably on the way. The horrendous war on drugs is just one example.
Here is another -- freedom to buy alcohol where it is most convenient. Living in AZ, I have come to expect that I can buy some tequila at my grocery store, but apparently this is a very limited freedom in the US:
There are two reasons. First, this is where you get one of those left-right coalitions, with Republican social conservatives wanting to limit liquor availability and Democratic big government types wanting to keep sales to a small group that can be tightly regulated (and strip-mined for campaign donations), or even better, to state-run liquor stores. The second reason is that once any regulation is in place that restricts sales, the beneficiaries of those restrictions (e.g. liquor stores or unionized employees at state-run stores) fight any liberalization tooth and nail to protect their crony rents.
When I write about the dangers to innovation, competition, and price discovery from the FCC's decision to regulate the Internet into Ma Bell, supporters of net neutering are quick to point out that the FCC promised to only use a fraction of the power it is giving itself.
Ha! When has this happened, ever, with the government? If they have the power, they are going to use it. In fact, to call the FCC as somehow careful about staying within bounds of their power is a joke anyway, since this entire regulation likely exceeds their legislative mandate. Even if the current commissioners are honest that they will never use all this new power, how can they possibly bind future commissioners?
I am reminded of the income tax, which was sold to the country with the promise that it would only ever apply to the top few percent of earners. In other words, they were asking for the power to tax everyone but promised only to use a fraction of that power
when initially imposed, the income tax, despite its progressive rates, appeared rather straightforward and not all that burdensome—almost benign. Of course, appearances can be deceiving.
There were, of course, warnings about the dangers of a progressive tax structure. But people supported the income tax because it was originally meant to impose only very low tax rates on only the highest incomes. Proponents argued that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would force the so-called “robber barons” to pay taxes. It was not supposed to provide a mechanism for Washington to reach into most Americans’ pockets.
The original income tax was obviously not meant to be paid by most citizens, nor were rates high enough to significantly undermine the spirit of enterprise. For example, under this system single taxpayers today would pay no tax on any earnings up to almost $45,000 and married couples on earnings up to almost $60,000. A one percent tax rate would be in effect on incomes up to about $300,000. The top rate of 7 percent would not take hold until earnings hit almost $7.5 million.
* "Net Neutrality" is an Orwellian term that bears no relationship to what is actually going on. I will use "net neutering" going forward.
Engadget is celebrating the fact that the Internet just got turned into Ma Bell. Here was my response in the comments:
This is utter madness. Since when has "free" ever meant "tightly controlled by the government"? Regulation like this always locks in current competitors and business models. Hate Comcast? You just guaranteed them their infinite existence and profitability. They will be the Ma Bell of your generation.
New competitive models and technologies will now have to be vetted by government bureaucrats who will soon be captured by the industry itself. It literally always happens this way. How much innovation did you ever see in the landline phone business? My telephone at my birth in 1962 was identical to the one in my dorm room in 1984. Power companies? Water companies? Cell voice service? What innovation have you ever seen? What new competitors have you seen pop up to challenge the old guys? Only in cellular data has there been any innovation, and that is to date the one place in phone communications the FCC has not regulated with this model.
I am exhausted with people justifying these heavy-handed government regulations based on the good intentions of their supporters rather than the actual facts of how these regulations always play out historically. We will look back on this day as the beginning of the end of the wild, open Internet we loved.
I will say that folks can really be rubes. Playing on the fear of one narrow issue that would have been easy to legislate (that broadband companies might block or limit access to certain sites), the government used this niche concern to drive through a total takeover of the Internet. Way to go sheeple.
Update: Some additional comments I made:
This problem of blocking web sites is almost entirely hypothetical, and to the extent it has been used at all it merely has been a negotiating tactic between big boys like Netflix and Comcast who can take care of themselves. It could have easily been fixed with a narrow bit of rulemaking but in stead we get this major regulatory takeover.
Doesn't it bother you that this is a problem that could have been solved with a fly-swatter but instead the regulators demanded they be given a 16-inch naval gun. Don't you worry why they need all that regulatory power to swat a fly? Aren't you at all suspicious there is more going on here?
A while back I (for a short time) chaired an effort to get a ballot initiative in Arizona to change to Constitution to allow gay marriage. In the process, gay rights advocates approached me for support of another law to add LGBT persons to the list of protected classes that are covered by workplace discrimination laws.
I refused to help, and these folks immediately labeled me a hypocrite. To be fair to them, they honestly thought that workplace discrimination laws did exactly what they intended to do - ban workplace discrimination of an overt sort (e.g., "what, you're gay? Well, you can't work around here any more"). But anti-discrimination law has a lot of other unintended consequences that are all bad for even the most fair-minded business owner.
Because most of the actual stories I have been through are (and should be) confidential, I will illustrate the problem from a story out of the national news.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is Chair of the Democratic Party. Several years ago various party members became dissatisfied with her leadership, a pretty normal occurrence for such a position, particularly after Congressional losses in several elections. I compare the job to that of an NFL coach, who has job security only as long as he is winning (see: Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco).
Wasserman Schultz’s position as the head of the DNC has long been a source of contention among Democrats, and Politico has previously documented the issue. In September 2014, Wasserman Schultz’s gaffes caught up to her when a string of Democrats voiced their distaste for the way the Florida congresswoman had led the party.
That report found tension between Wasserman Schultz and Obama dating back to 2011 .... At the time, Wasserman Schultz had allegedly complained to Obama about not being able to hire a donor’s daughter to work for her at the DNC.
“Obama summed up his reaction to staff afterward: ‘Really?’ ” according to a source that was present.
So, faced with threats of losing her position based on poor job performance, her response was this:
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was prepared to go full force against President Obama if he tried to replace her in 2013.
Wasserman Schultz, according to Politico, was going to accuse Obama of being anti-woman and anti-Semitic — apparently to cover all the bases — if he dared consider replacing her as chairwoman.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe President Obama wanted to fire her because she was a woman. Seriously, Valerie Jarrett practically runs the country but Obama doesn't like Shultz because she is a woman? I would bet that in fact she was hired for the position in large part because she was a woman. But she was perfectly willing to use the fact that she happened to be in some protected employment classes to try to head off a merit-based firing.
For businesses, this means two things
- It typically takes much longer to terminate someone in a protected class, because businesses want to make sure they have an absolutely iron-clad case if the termination is later challenged. For a service business like ours, this sometimes means tolerating dangerous behavior or really bad customer service longer (with all the risks that entails) from someone in a protected group rather than from, say, a white male.
- A large number of employees in protected groups will file grievances to the state, or even sue, over even the most well-documented and justified termination. Even when employers win such cases, each one take tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to win. As interpreted by courts and state civil rights agencies, anti-discrimination law seems to create burden of proof on the part of employers to prove they did nothing wrong, rather than the other way around.
I want to offer a perspective on the Greek financial mess.
I am not confused about the Greek desire to get out from under their debt load - past governments have built up intolerable levels of debt which is costs a huge portion of Greek GDP to pay off.
At one time in my life I would have been confused by folks, often on the Left, who argue that the answer to Greek debt problems is ... deficit spending. This might have seen inexplicable to me earlier in life as a wondered how the same behavior of fiscal irresponsibility that led them into debt would get them out. But I have learned that there is no limit to the optimism Keynesians hold for the effects of government spending. The last trillion of debt may have not done anything measurable but the next trillion is always going to be the one that turns us around. Sort of like Cubs fans.
No, what confuses me today is the fact that other institutions and countries are still willing to buy Greek debt and even entertain some sort of debt swap where they end up with even more Greek debt. I have heard it said by many experts that it is unrealistic to expect that lenders will get even a fraction of their principle back from these loans. So why loan more?
The key for me in understanding this is the book "Engineering the Financial Crisis". In that book, the authors presented the theory that the Basel capital accords, which set capital requirements for banks, had a lot to do with the last financial crisis. Specifically, the rules allowed bank investments in two types of securities to be counted at 100% towards their capital levels. Any other type of investment was severely discounted, so there were enormous incentives in the regulations to focus bank investments on these two types of securities. What were they? Sovereign debt and mortgages (and mortgage-backed securities).
In the authors' view, which I find persuasive, a lot of the last financial crisis was caused by these rules creating a huge artificial demand by banks for mortgage securities. This created a sort of monoculture that was susceptible to small contagions spreading rapidly. As this demand for mortgage backed securities inevitably drove down their returns, it also created a demand for higher-yielding, riskier mortgage investments that might still "count" as mortgage securities under the capital requirements.
Anyway, for the Greek crisis, we need to look at the other piece of these capital requirements that give 100% capital credit: sovereign debt. Now, I may have this wrong, but for Euro denominated credit, it all counts as 100% whether its German or Greek, which is a bit like saying a mortgage to Bill Gates and a mortgage to Clark Griswold's country cousins count the same, but those are the rules.
So here is the problem as I understand it: Greek debt, because of its risk, paid higher returns than other sovereign debt but still counted the same against capital requirements. So European banks loaded up on it. Now that the debt is clearly bad, I am sure they would love to get paid for it. But what they want even more is to continue to get credit for it on their balance sheets against capital requirements. So what the banks need more than getting paid is for the debt to still exist and to (nominally) be current so that they can still count it on their balance sheets. Otherwise, if the debt gets written off, that means banks need to run out and raise hundreds of billions in new capital to replace it.
Yes, I know this seems insane. If everyone knows that the debt is virtually worthless, isn't it a sham to keep taking expensive steps (like issuing even more new debt) just to make sure the debt still appears on the books at 100%? Yes, of course it is. This is a problem with just about every system ever tried on bank capital requirements. Such requirements make sense (even to this libertarian) in a world of deposit insurance and too big to fail, but they can and do create expensive unintended consequences.
I wrote the other day about how Kevin Drum was confused at why broadband stocks might be rising in the wake of news that the government would regulate broadband companies as utilities. I argued the reason was likely because investors know that such regulation blocks most innovation-based competition and tends to guarantee companies a minimum profit -- nothing to sneeze at in the Internet world where previous giants like AOL, Earthlink, and Mindspring are mostly toast.
James Taranto pointed today to an interesting Richard Eptstein quote along the same lines (though he was referring to hospitals under Obamacare):
Traditional public utility regulation applies to such services as gas, electric and water, which were supplied by natural monopolists. Left unregulated, they could charge excessive or discriminatory prices. The constitutional art of rate regulation sought to keep monopolists at competitive rates of return.
To control against the risk of confiscatory rates, the Supreme Court also required the state regulator to allow each firm to obtain a market rate of return on its invested capital, taking into account the inherent riskiness of the venture.
I have mentioned a number of times my chicken or the egg arguments with Progressives on the solution to cronyism. Is the problem that government power exists to influence markets, and as long as it exists people will bid to control it? Or is it possible to wield massive make-or-break government power over industry rationally, and only the rank immorality and corrupt speech of corporations stands in the way. The former argues for a reduction in government power, the latter for more regulation of corporations and their ability to participate in the political process.
I believe this is an example in favor of the "power is inherently corrupting" argument. No corporation lobbied for NOx rules on diesel engines. They all fought it tooth and nail. But once these regulations existed, engine makers are all trying to use the laws to gut their competition:
In 1991, the EPA ignored complaints from several makers of non-road engines that rivals were cheating, in order to save fuel, on emissions rules for oxides of nitrous (NOx). Then environmental groups took up the same complaint, whereupon the agency demanded face-saving consent decrees with numerous engine makers, including two Volvo affiliates.
In essence, the engine makers apologized by agreeing in 1999 to accelerate by a single year compliance with a new emissions standard scheduled to take effect in 2006.
Meanwhile, with another NOx standard looming in 2010, Navistar sued the EPA claiming rival engine-makers were seeking to meet the rule with a defective technology. In turn, Navistar’s competitors sued claiming the EPA was unfairly favoring a defective technology pursued by Navistar (these are only the barest highlights of what became a truck-makers’ legal holy war).
While all this was going on, a Navistar joint-venture partner, Caterpillar, complained that 7,262 Volvo stationary engines made in Sweden before 2006 had violated the 1999 consent decree. Now let’s credit Caterpillar with a certain paperwork ingenuity: The Volvo engines were not imported to the U.S. and were made by a Volvo affiliate that wasn’t a party to the consent decree. EPA itself happily certified the engines under its then-current NOx standard, only changing its mind four years later, prodded by a competitor with a clear interest in damaging Volvo’s business.
To complete the parody, a federal district court would later agree that the 1999 consent terms “do not clearly apply” to the engines in question, but upheld an EPA penalty anyway because Volvo otherwise might enjoy a “competitive advantage” against engines to which the consent decree applied.
As a side note, this is from the "oops, nevermind" Emily Litella School of Regulation:
Let it be said that the EPA’s NOx regulation must have done some good for the American people, though how much good is hard to know. The EPA relies on dubious extrapolations to estimate the benefits to public health. What’s more, the agency appears to have stopped publishing estimates of NOx pollution after 2005. Maybe that’s because the EPA’s focus has shifted to climate change, and its NOx regulations actually increase greenhouse emissions by increasing fuel burn.
It is a paradox of our age that the interventionists think the public is too stupid to consult Angie’s List before hiring a lawyer, and so they need politicians to weed out the really bad ones by requiring law licenses. Yet, who determines whether a person (often a lawyer!) is qualified to become a politician? Why, the same group of citizens who were too stupid to pick their own lawyers.
Kevin Drum simply does not understand why Wall Street might be piling into broadband stocks despite proposed "tough new regulations." He posits a number of hypotheses -- that Wall Street expected the rules to be worse than they turned out to be. But this can't be it because the hundreds of pages of rules are still a secret. He also hypothesizes there might be some nefarious secret loophole buried in the rules Wall Street knows about but we don't.
This is crazy! How can a reasonably bright person like Drum who writes about the political economy not understand the issue of regulatory capture? Seriously, I have always figured that the Left, which has a seemingly infinite appetite for regulation, must favor regulation because they find the benefits to out-weight the crony-ist downsides. Is it really possible Drum is unfamiliar with the downsides altogether, or is he just being coy?
Here is what regulation, particularly utility-style regulation, tends to do -- it locks in current business models and competitors. It makes it really hard for new entrants to challenge incumbents with innovative new business models or approaches, because regulations have been written based on the old business model and did not take the new one in account. So a new entrant must begin business by getting regulators to allow their new model, which never happens because by this time incumbents have buildings full of lobbyists aimed at the regulatory process. Go ask Tesla and Uber and Lyft about how easy it is to enter a heavily regulated business even with a superior new business model.
This is particularly true in the technology world. The biggest threat to incumbency is someone with a new technology or approach to the technology. Don't believe me? I suggest you go to the offices of Netscape or AOL or Lycos or Borders or Circuit City or Radio Shack and interview them about the security of their multi-billion dollar businesses in the face of new online technologies. At best, regulators put a huge speed bump in the way of competitors, costing them time and money to get their alternative business model approved. At worst, regulators block new competitors altogether.
I will give you a thought experiment. Let's say these exact same rules were adopted in the year 2000, when AOL and Earthlink dial-up ruled the internet access world. Would cable and satellite and DSL have grown as quickly? I can see the regulators now -- "hey, all the rules specify phone dial up. There's nothing here about cable TV. Sorry [Cox, Comcast, whoever] you are going to have to wait until we can write new rules.
The other thing that happens with utility-style regulation is that companies in the business tend to get their returns guaranteed. Made a bad investment in a competitive market? Well good luck getting customers to pay extra to bail you out from your bad decision when they have other options. But what happens when your local power company wastes $10 billion on a nuclear plant that never opens -- it gets built into your rate base!
In the cast of broadband, they are locked in what business school students would see as a classic supply chain battle. Upstream companies like Netflix supply content via downstream broadband companies. Consumers are only willing to pay a certain amount for this content, so the upstream and downstream fight a lot over who gets what share of that consumer $. This happens everywhere in the business world, from Cable TV to oil refining to selling TV's at Wal-Mart. There is a real danger that broadband will lose this fight in the future -- but not now. Regulated industries never die, they appeal to their regulators for help.
As of yesterday, Wall Street is looking at broadband companies and realizing that they are now largely immune from competition and some level of minimum returns are likely now gauranteed forever. Consumers should hate this, but what's not to love for Wall Street?
Postscript: Kevin Drum describes the new regulation this way: "Basically, under Wheeler's proposal, cable companies would no longer be able to sign special deals to provide certain companies with faster service in return for higher payments." This is a bit like describing the Patriot Act as a law to force people to take their shoes off at the airport. Yes, it does that narrow thing, but it does a LOT else. The proposal is hundreds of freaking pages long. It does not take hundreds of pages to do the narrow little niche thing Drum (like most neutrality supporters) wants.
This Administration has cleverly taken this one tiny concern people have and have used it as an excuse to do a major regulatory takeover of the Internet. This is a huge Trojan Horse. But I have already ranted about the details of that and you can read that here.
I am just amazed at how many otherwise smart people are rooting for the government to regulate the Internet:
According to a pair of new reports from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, the FCC chairman Tom Wheeler will soon do what some net neutrality advocates have been clamoring for for ages: Try to officially reclassify internet service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. That'd effectively put internet access in the same bucket as landline telephone service, which is treated as a public utility in the United States, and would basically ban the paid prioritization of certain web sites and services over others....
We -- along with many of you -- will be watching the outcome of that vote with bated breath. For that matter, so will representatives and head honchoes of the country's internet service providers. A vote in favor of reclassification means that all of those companies will eventually have to deal with way more intense regulatory scrutiny, and do away with plans to treat some web-centric companies with deep pockets as first-class citizens of the internet while the rest of us wait longer for other stuff to load.
So, out of the fear in the last sentence, that some people will get better service than others -- something that, oh by the way, has never really happened so is entirely hypothetical -- you are urging on a regulatory regime originally designed for land-line phone companies, a technology that basically went unchanged for decades at a time. The phones that were in my home at my birth in 1962 were identical to the one in my dorm room when AT&T was broken up in 1982. Jesus, we are turning the Internet into a public utility -- name three innovations from an American public utility in the last 40 years. Name one.
And all you free-speech advocates, do you really think the Feds won't use this as a back-door to online censorship? We are talking about the same agency that went into a tizzy when Janet Jackson may have accidentally on purpose shown a nipple on TV. All that is good with TV today-- The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Arrested Development, etc. etc. etc. results mainly from the fact that cable is able to avoid exactly the kind of freaking regulation you want to impose on the Internet.
Here is my official notice -- you have been warned, time and again. There will be no allowing future statements of "I didn't mean that" or "I didn't expect that" or "that's not what I intended." There is no saying that you only wanted this one little change, that you didn't buy into all the other mess that is coming. You let the regulatory camel's nose in the tent and the entire camel is coming inside. I guarantee it.
Update: Apparently the 1934 Telecommunications Act imposes a legal obligation on phone carriers to complete calls no matter who they are from. Sounds familiar, huh? Just like net neutrality. It turns out this law is one of the major barriers preventing phone companies from offering innovative services to block spam calls.
Closely on the heals of their victory in an asset forfeiture case in New York, the Institute of Justice (IJ) successfully fought the state licensing requirement for hair braiders in Texas.
A 2013 press statement on the Institute for Justice’s website described Brantley’s frustration with the criteria: “This means that Isis must spend 2,250 hours in barber school, pass four exams, and spend thousands of dollars on tuition and a fully-equipped barber college she doesn’t need, all to teach a 35-hour hair-braiding curriculum,” the statement read.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks on Monday seemed to agree with Brantley’s concerns that the requirements for hair-braiding entrepreneurs were superfluous. Sparks ruled that the Texas laws were unconstitutional and “absent” a rational connection with Brantley’s intended marketplace, the Associated Press reports.
“I fought for my economic liberty because I believe there is a lot of hope for young people who seek to earn an honest living,” Brantley said in a press statement. “This decision means that I will now be able to teach the next generation of African hair braiders at my own school.”
Good. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a way to fight these stupid licensing laws except one at a time, state by state. And every time we take one on, the incumbent competitors in that business (who are the primary beneficiaries of licensure that restricts new competition) fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
I will observe that red states are just as bad as blue states on occupational licenses. This is cronyism, not ideology. From this site, here are just a few the occupational licenses one still needs in Texas (this is from a school web site, so these are just the ones that have continuing education requirements that this school serves). I suspect that this list is incomplete, as long as it is, because barbers and hair stylists, the subject of this case, are not even on the list.
|LICENSED OCCUPATIONS IN TEXAS|
|Continuing Education Requirements|
|Licensed Occupations||License||Continuing Education Requirements to Renew|
|Accountants & Auditors||Certified Public Accountant||Annual CEUs Ethics-2hrs/yr|
|Acupuncturist||Acupuncturist||17 hours CAE/yr|
|Heating, A/C, & Refrigeration Mechanics & Installers||A/C & Refrigeration Contractor||Voluntary continuing education|
|Athletic Trainer||Athletic Trainer||30 clock hours/ 3 years|
|Judges and Magistrates||Attorney||15 CLE hours/year inc. 3 hrs. ethics|
|Combative Sports Promoter||Boxing Promoter||Voluntary continuing education|
|Child Care Administrator||Child Care Administrator||15 hours for biennial renewal|
|Compliance Officers||Code Enforcement Officer||to be required; rules in development|
|Counselors, Chemical Dependency||Chemical Dependency Counselor||If also licensed as LMSW, LMFT,LPC, physician, or
psychologist-24 hours CE/2yrs.
If not otherwise licensed, 60 hours.
All hours specific to or related to chemical dependency.
|Counselor, Professional||Counselor, Professional||12 hours/year inc. 3 hours ethics or legal issues every other yr.|
|Dental Hygienists||Dental Hygienist||12 hours/year|
|Dietitians and Nutritionists||Dietitian||6 clock hours/year|
|Drinking Water Utility Plant Operator||Certificate Classes 1-3||1-2 courses in water conditioning|
|Emergency Medical Technicians||Emergency Medical Technician||Varies by level: see below|
|Emergency Care Attendants (ECA)||20 contact hours CE/2yrs; 40 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT)||40 contact hours CE/2yrs; 80 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|EMT-Intermediates (EMT-1)||60 contact hours CE/2 yrs; 120 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|EMT-Paramedics (EMT-P)||80 contact hours CE/2 yrs; 160 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|Engineers||Professional Engineer||None required|
|Fire Fighters||Fire Protection Personnel/Firefighter||20 hrs CE/year|
|Fire Inspectors||Fire Protection System Contractor||None found|
|Funeral Directors & Morticians||Funeral Director/Embalmer||20 hrs/yr; required 2 hrs-law updates; 2-ethics; 2-vital stats|
|Salespersons, Retail||Hearing Instrument Fitter/Dispenser||20 hrs/yr|
|Insurance Adjusters, Examiners, & Investigators||Insurance Adjuster||30 hrs/2yrs, including 2 hrs/ethics (Most licensees)|
|Sales Agents & Placers, Insurance||Insurance Agent||15 hours CE/yr|
|Interior Designers||Interior Designer||8 hrs/yr|
|Interpreter||Interpreter for the Deaf||75 hrs/5 yrs.|
|Construction-Irrigator||Irrigator, Landscape||8 hours/yr|
|Surveyors and Mapping Scientists||Land Surveyor||8 hrs/yr|
|Landscape Architects||Landscape Architect||8 CEPH/year (CE Program Hrs) TBAE|
|Police Detectives||Law Enforcement Officer||40 hrs/2 yrs Currently in 4 yr cycle|
|Librarians, Professional||Librarian, County|
|Grades II & III (valid for two years)||3 semester hrs at accredited college
or 20 hrs other continuing education activities
|Grade I (permanent)|
|Marriage & Family Therapist||Marriage & Family Therapist||15 hrs/yr; 3 hrs ethics every 3 yrs.|
|Massage Therapist||Massage Therapist||6 clock hrs/yr|
|Medical Scientists||Medical Physicist, Professional||24 contact hours/2 years|
|Radiologic Technologists||Medical Radiologic Technologist, General||24 hours/2 years|
|Limited Certificate||12 hours/2 years|
|Nursing Aides, Orderlies, & Attendants||Midwife, Direct Entry||10 hours CE /yr|
|Licensed Practical Nurses||Nurse, Licensed Vocational (LVN)||20 contact hours (2 CEUs)/2 yrs|
|Registered Nurses||Nurse, Registered (RN)||20 contact hours (2 /CEUs)/2 yrs|
|Nurse Aide, Long Term Care||none found|
|Medicine & Health Services Managers||Nursing Facility Administrator||40 hours CE/ 2 yrs|
|Occupational Therapists||Occupational Therapist||30 hrs/2 yrs.|
|Occupational Therapist Assistant||30 hrs/2yrs|
|On-Site Sewage Facility||Designated Representative||16 hrs/yr|
|Installer Class I||16 hrs/yr|
|Installer Class II||16 hrs/yr|
|Opticians, Dispensing & Measuring||Optician||5 hrs/yr for voluntarily registered opticians|
|Optometrists||Optometrist||sixteen hours of continuing education/ year inc.
six hours in diagnostic or therapeutic education
|prosthetist or orthotist license||24 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetist and orthotist license||40 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetist or orthotist assistant||12 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetist and orthotist assistant||20 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetic or orthotic technician||6 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetic and orthotic technician||10 hrs/2 yrs|
|Pawn Broker/Lender||Pawnbroker/Lender||None found|
|Cardiology Technologist||Perfusionist||45 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Pest Controllers & Assistants||Pesticide Applicator|
|Private Applicator||15 CEUs/5 yrs ( 2 ea. in laws/regs & integrated pest mgmt.)|
|Private Applicator Certificate Holder||15 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Commercial Applicator||5 CEUs/yr (1 ea fr 2 of: laws/regs, integ pest mgmt, drift min)|
|Noncommercial Applicator||5 CEUs/yr (1 ea fr 2 of: laws/regs, integ pest mgmt, drift min)|
|Pharmacists||Pharmacist||12 hours CE/ yr|
|Physical Therapists||Physical Therapist||3 CEUs (30 contact hours)/2yrs inc. 2 hrs. ethics;|
|Physical Therapist Assistant||2 CEUs (20 contact hours)/2 yrs inc. 2 hrs. ethics|
|Physicians and Surgeons||Physician||24 hrs CME/yr (at least 12 hours formal courses)|
|Physician Assistant||40 hrs CME/yr (at least 20 hours formal courses)|
|Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters||Plumber||6 hrs/ yr|
|Podiatrists||Podiatric Physician||30 hours CE/2 yrs|
|Polygraph Examiners||Polygraph Examiner||voluntary|
|Detectives/Investigators||Private Investigator/Security Guard||12 hrs/2yrs|
|Psychological Associate||12 hrs/yr|
|Specialist in School Psychology||12 hrs/yr|
|Sales Agents, Real Estate||Real Estate Broker||15 classroom hours MCE/ two years inc. 6 hrs legal topics|
|Real Estate Sales Agent||30 hours/yr Salesperson Annual Education (SAE)|
|Construction & Building Inspectors||Real Estate Inspector||8 hours core real estate inspection courses/year|
|Respiratory Therapists||Respiratory Care Practitioner||12 hours CE/yr|
|Sanitarian||Sanitarian||12 CE contact hours/yr|
|Sales Agent, Securities, Commodities, Financial Serv.||Securities Dealer/Investment Advisor||none found|
|Social Workers||Social Work Associate||15 hours CE/yr inc. 3 hours in ethics|
|Licensed Social Worker||15 hours CE/yr inc. 3 hours in ethics|
|Licensed Master Social Worker||15 hours CE/yr inc. 3 hours in ethics|
|Municipal Solid Waste||Solid Waste Technician Class A-Class D||40 hrs-24 hrs/4 yrs|
|Speech-Language Pathologists & Audiologists||Speech-Language Pathologist/Audiologist||10 hrs/yr; 15 if dually licensed|
|Tax Examiners, Collectors, & Revenue Agents||Registered Texas Assessor Collectors||60 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Registered Professional Appraisers||60 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Registered Texas Collectors||25 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Installer||Underground Storage Tank Installer||8 hrs/yr|
|UST On-Site Installer or Remover Supervisor||8 hrs/yr for each license type held|
|Veterinarians and Veterinary Inspectors||Veterinarian||15 hrs/yr; 3 hrs ethics every 3 yrs.|
|Earth Drillers||Water Well Driller/Pump Installer|
|Continuing Education Requirements|
|Clinical Laboratory Scientist||Clinical Laboratory Scientist/Med. Tech||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Clinical Laboratory Technician||Clinical Laboratory Technician/ Med. Lab. Tech.||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Clinical Laboratory Phlebotomist||Clinical Laboratory Phlebotomist||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|CT(IAC) International Academy of Cytology||Cytotechnologist||180 continuing education credits/4 yrs|
|Genetic Counselor||Genetic Counselor, Diplomate||25 CEUs/10 yrs|
|Histologic technician||Histologic Technician||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Kinesiotherapist||Kinesiotherapist||1.2 CEUs (1 CE = 10 contact hours) / year|
|Leisure Professional||Leisure Professional, Certified||2 CEUs/2 yrs|
|Music Therapist||Music Therapist-Board Certified||CE|
|Orthoptist||Orthoptist||15 hours CE/yr|
|Pathologists' Assistant||Pathologists' Assistant||Certification process in development|
|Recreation Therapist||Therapeutic recreation specialist, certified||30-50 hours/5 yrs|
|Surgical Technologist||Certified Surgical Technologist||80 CE credits/6 yrs|
Brink Lindsey of Cato is gathering academic essays on the topic "If you could wave a magic wand and make one or two policy or institutional changes to brighten the U.S. economy’s long-term growth prospects, what would you change and why?" I am by no means in the distinguished academic company that were invited to contribute, but I thought it was an interesting topic. Here is my (uninvited) contribution.
The question of skills and the American workforce is typically tackled in only one direction: that we need more high-skilled workers to meet the challenge of emerging industries and business models that are increasingly driven by technology. A recent report by the OECD, and as summarized in the New York Times, is a typical example of this concern. As Eduardo Porter writes in the Times:
To believe an exhaustive new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the skill level of the American labor force is not merely slipping in comparison to that of its peers around the world, it has fallen dangerously behind.
The report is based on assessments of literacy, math skills and problem-solving using information technology that were performed on about 160,000 people age 16 to 65 in 22 advanced nations of the O.E.C.D., plus Russia and Cyprus. Five thousand Americans were assessed. The results are disheartening....
“Unless there is a significant change of direction,” the report notes, “the work force skills of other O.E.C.D. countries will overtake those of the U.S. just at the moment when all O.E.C.D. countries will be facing (and indeed are already facing) major and fast-increasing competitive challenges from emerging economies.”
A lot of head scratching goes on as to why, when the income premium is so high for gaining skills, there are not more people seeking to gain them. School systems are often blamed, which is fair in part (if I were to be given a second magic wand to wave, it would be to break up the senescent government school monopoly with some kind of school choice system). But a large portion of the population apparently does not take advantage of the educational opportunities that do exist. Why is that?
When one says "job skills," people often think of things like programming machine tools or writing Java code. But for new or unskilled workers -- the very workers we worry are trapped in poverty in our cities -- even basic things we take for granted like showing up on-time reliably and working as a team with others represent skills that have to be learned. Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, despite his Princeton education, still learned many of his first real-world job skills working at McDonald's. In fact, back in the 1970's, a survey found that 10% of Fortune 500 CEO's had their first work experience at McDonald's.
Part of what we call "the cycle of poverty" is due not just to a lack of skills, but to a lack of understanding of or appreciation for such skills that can cross generations. Children of parents with few skills or little education can go on to achieve great things -- that is the American dream after all. But in most of these cases, kids who are successful have parents who were, if not educated, at least knowledgeable about the importance of education, reliability, and teamwork -- understanding they often gained via what we call unskilled work. The experience gained from unskilled work is a bridge to future success, both in this generation and the next.
But this road to success breaks down without that initial unskilled job. Without a first, relatively simple job it is almost impossible to gain more sophisticated and lucrative work. And kids with parents who have little or no experience working are more likely to inherit their parent's cynicism about the lack of opportunity than they are to get any push to do well in school, to work hard, or to learn to cooperate with others.
Unfortunately, there seem to be fewer and fewer opportunities for unskilled workers to find a job. As I mentioned earlier, economists scratch their heads and wonder why there are not more skilled workers despite high rewards for gaining such skills. I am not an economist, I am a business school grad. We don't worry about explaining structural imbalances so much as look for the profitable opportunities they might present. So a question we business folks might ask instead is: If there are so many under-employed unskilled workers rattling around in the economy, why aren't entrepreneurs crafting business models to exploit this fact?
A few months back, I was at my Harvard Business School 25th reunion. Over the weekend, they had dozens of lectures and programs on what is being researched and taught nowadays at the school. I can't remember a single new business model discussed that relied on unskilled workers.
Is this just the way it is now? Have the Internet and computers and robotics and complex genomics made unskilled work obsolete? I don't think so. I have been running a business for over a decade that employs more than 300 people in unskilled positions. I will confess that the other day I came home tired from work and told my wife, "Honey, in my next company, I have to find a business that doesn't require employees." But that despair doesn't come from a lack of opportunities to deliver value to customers with relatively unskilled labor. And it doesn't come from any inherent issues I might have running a large people-driven service company -- in fact, I will say there has been absolutely nothing in my business life that has been more rewarding than seeing a person who has never had anything but unskilled jobs discover that they can become managers and learn more complex tasks.
The reason for my despair comes from a single source: the government is making it increasingly difficult and costly to hire unskilled workers, while simultaneously creating a culture among new workers that short-circuits their ability to make progress.
The costs that government taxes and rules add to labor have been discussed many times, but usually individually. Their impact is clearer when we discuss them as a whole. Let's take California, because that state is one I know well. To begin, the minimum wage is $9 (going to $10 an hour in 2016). To that we have to add taxes and workers compensation premiums, both of which are high because because California does little to police fraud in unemployment and injury claims. For us, these add another $3.15 an hour. We also now have to add in the Obamacare employer mandate, which at a minimum of $3000 per full-time employee (accepting the penalty is cheaper than paying for health care) adds another $1.50 an hour. And the new California paid sick leave mandate adds another 45 cents an hour. So, looking just at core requirements, we are already up to a minimum of $14.10 an hour, less than 2/3 of which actually shows up in the employee's paycheck.
But these direct costs don't even begin cover the additional fixed costs of hiring employees. We pay a payroll company thousands of dollars a year to make sure that regulations on taxes and paychecks are followed. We spend so much time making sure our written plans and documentation on safety meet the requirements of OSHA and its California state equivalent that we barely have the capacity to actually focus on safety. In California we have to have complex systems in place to make sure our employees don't work through their lunch break, that they have the right sort of chair and that they sit in them frequently enough, that they follow all the right procedures when the temperature outside goes over 85 degrees, that they get paid for sick leave and get their job back after extended medical leave.... the list goes on and on.
In a smaller company, we don't have lawyers and a large human resource staff. In fact, we tend to have little staff at all. If some new compliance issue arises -- which happens about every day the California legislature is in session -- the owner (me) has to figure out a solution. In one year I literally spent more personal time on compliance with a single regulatory issue -- implementing increasingly detailed and draconian procedures so I could prove to the State of California that my employees were not working over their 30 minute lunch breaks -- than I did thinking about expanding the business or getting new contracts.
Towards the end of last year I was making a speech to a group of business school students, and someone asked me what my biggest accomplishment had been over the prior year. I told them it was probably getting the company down from hundreds of full-time workers to less than 50, converting everyone to part-time. And it was a huge effort, involving new systems and a number of capital investments to accommodate more staff working fewer hours. And it had a huge payout, saving us hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in Obamacare penalties and compliance costs. But come on! How depressing is it that my biggest business accomplishment was not growing the business or coming up with a new customer service but in cutting the working hours for good employees? But that is the reality of trying to run a service business today. The business couldn't be profitable until we'd adjusted our practices to these new regulations, so there was no point in even thinking about growth until we had done so.
Labor-based business models that work at a $7 or $8 total labor cost may well not work at $15, and they certainly are not going to grow very fast if the people responsible for seeking out growth opportunities are instead consumed in a morass of legal compliance issues. But there is perhaps an even more damaging impact of government interventions, and that is to the culture of work. I will confess in advance I don't have comprehensive data to prove my hypothesis, but let me tell a couple of stories.
Until 2010, we never had an employee sue us. We had over 8 years hiring 350 seasonal workers a year, mostly older retired folks, without any sort of legal issues. Since 2010, we have had eight employee suits threatened or filed, all of which we have won but at a legal cost of $20-$25 thousand each (truly Pyrrhic victories). So what changed around 2010? Well, our work force composition changed a lot. Before that time, we typically hired older retired folks, because the seasonal nature of the job is simply not very appropriate for a younger person trying to support themselves without other means (like retirement or Social Security). However, after 2009 when a lot of younger folks were losing their traditional jobs, they began applying to our company. Our work force shifted younger, which actually excited me because I felt it would help us in attracting a younger demographic to the campgrounds we operate. But all eight of these legal actions were by these new, younger employees. I asked one person who was suing us over what was a trivial slight, really a misunderstanding, why they did not just call me (my personal number is in their employee handbook) to fix it. They said that if I had fixed it, they would have lost the opportunity to sue.
I mentioned earlier that we had struggled to comply with California meal break law. The problem was that my workers needed extra money, and so begged me to be able to work through lunch so they could earn a half-hour more pay each day. They said they would sign a paper saying they had agreed to this. Little did I know that this was a strategy devised by a local attorney who understood meal break litigation better than I. What he knew, but I didn't, was that based on new case law, a company had to get the employee's signature every day, not just once, to avoid the meal break penalties. The attorney advised them they could get the money for working lunch AND they could sue later for more money (which he would get a cut of). Which is exactly what they did, waiting until November to sue so they could get some extra money to pay for Christmas bills. This is why -- believe it or not -- it is now a firing offense at our company to work through lunch in California.
Hopefully you see my concern. I fear that we have trained a whole generation that the way one gets ahead is not to work hard and gain new skills but to seek out and exploit opportunities to file lawsuits. That the way to work in an organization is not to learn to manage the inevitable frictions that result from different sorts of people working together but to sue at the first hint that you have been dissed. As an aside, I think this sort of litigiousness, both of employees and customers, is yet another reason employers are reluctant to hire low-skilled employees. If as a business owner one is absolutely liable for any knuckle-headed thing your most junior employee might utter, no matter how clear you are in your policies and actions that such behavior is not tolerated, then how likely are you to hire a high-school dropout with no work experience?
Is it any surprise that most entrepreneurs are pursuing business models where they leverage revenues via technology and a relatively small, high-skill workforce? Uber and Lyft at first seem to buck this trend, with their thousands of drivers. But in fact they prove the rule. Uber and Lyft are very very careful to define themselves and their service in a way that all those drivers don't work for them. I would go so far to say that if Uber were forced to actually put all of those drivers on their payroll, and deal with they myriad of labor compliance issues, their model would fall apart
We cannot address the skill gap unless people have entry level, low-skill-tolerant jobs to take the first steps up the ladder of success. If the government continues on its current course, it will become impossible to run a business that employs unskilled workers. The value of the work performed will simply not justify the cost. We may be concerned about income inequality today, but if we kill off the profitability of employing unskilled workers, then we are going to be left with a true two-class society -- those with high-skill jobs and those on government assistance --and few options for moving from one to the other.
The Business Secretary of the UK is desperately worried that when travelling to other countries, Brits will encounter a different selection of Netflix programming from what they are used to at home. This trivial issue seems to demand a whole new regulatory and copyright regime:
Vince Cable will risk a clash with the film and music industries on Tuesday by calling for the creation of a single EU market for digital services such as Netflix.
The Business Secretary will say in a speech in Brussels that such services should offer the same content in all EU member states, for services paid for in one country to be available in the same form in all countries and for pricing offers to be replicated across the continent.
At present Netflix and Spotify, which operates a subscription streaming service for music, offers different catalogues at different prices depending on where the customer is located.
Harmonising such services across the EU would require copyright holders to change the way they license their material, which is currently carefully segmented for different geographic markets to maximise sales
Whenever Euro-regulators suggest harmonization across countries, they always assume that harmonization will lead to everyone adopting whatever the lowest current rate and broadest service offering that exists in any one country. But why? That pretty much never happens. It is at least as likely that anyone getting harmonized will get worse service at a higher price.
This article on bad bipartisan energy laws and regulations from Master Resource brought back some old memories of the 1970s.
Folks who are at all economically literate understand the role that government price controls (specifically price caps) had on gasoline shortages in the 1970s. When there was a supply shock via the Arab oil embargo, prices were not allowed to rise to match supply and demand. As in the case of all such price control situations, shortages and queuing resulted.
It is too bad in a way that most folks today can't really remember the gas lines of 1973 and again in 1978. It was my job in 1978 as the new driver in the family to go wait in line for gas for all the family cars. I wasted hours and hours sitting in gas lines. I wonder if anyone has every computed the economic value of the time lost to Americans sitting in gas lines because politicians did not want the price to rise by 20 cents.
A number of my friends who knew my dad was an Exxon executive were surprised at my waiting in lines, and wondered why we didn't get some sort of secret access to gas. But my family waited in lines like everything else.
Well, almost like everyone else. Because of my dad's position, we did have a bit of information most people did not have, at least in the first shock of 1973. It was not a secret, it was just totally unreported in the media. The key was the knowledge of a piece of Congressional legislation called the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. It had an enormous impact on exacerbating the urban gas lines, but either out of a general ignorance or else a media/academic desire not to make government regulation look bad, it is as unknown today as it was unreported in 1973.
What the law did was this -- it mandated that oil companies distribute gasoline geographically in the US in the same proportion that it was sold in the prior year. So if they sold x% in area Y last year before the embargo, x% must be distributed to area Y this year after the embargo. I can't remember the exact concern, but Congress had some fear that oil companies would somehow respond to price signals in a way that caused gasoline allocations to hose someone somewhere.
Anyway, the effect was devastating, probably even worse than the effect of price controls. The reason was that while Congress forced gasoline supply distribution patterns to remain the same as the prior year (in classic directive 10-289 style), demand patterns had changed a lot. Specifically, with the fear that gas might not be available over the road and looming economic problems, people cancelled their summer long-distance driving trips.
Everyone stayed home and didn't drive the Interstates cross-country. So there was little demand for gas at the stations that served these routes. But by law, oil companies had to keep delivering gasoline to these typically rural stations. So as urban drivers fumed sitting in gas lines for hours and hours, many rural locations were awash in gas. Populist Congressmen berated oil companies in the press for the urban gas shortages and lines, all while it was their stupid, ill-considered laws that created a lot of the problem.
So this was the fact that should have been public, but was not: That instead of sitting in urban gas lines for four hours, one could drive 30 minutes into the countryside and find it much easier. Which is what we did, a number of times.
By the way, it was about this time that I read Hedrick Smith's great book "The Russians." It was, for the time, a nearly unique look at the life of ordinary Russians under Soviet communism. I wish the book were still in print (I would love to see one of the free market think tanks do a reissue, at least on Kindle). Anyway, about 80% of the book seemed to be about how individual Russians dealt with constant shortages and ubiquitous queuing. It seemed that a lot of the innovation in the general populace was channeled into just these concerns. What a waste. Dealing with the 1970s gas lines and shortages is about the closest I have ever come to the life described in that book.
I reported a while back about the apparent (from all the media angst over "gridlock") horrendous shortage of laws. Well the California legislature is stepping in to the breach, passing over 900 new laws over the last year. Our company is steadily exiting California because we have no desire to learn to comply with 900 new laws a year, but obviously many of you are simply begging to be legislated and regulated more so you are welcome to rush into the breach.
Arnold Kling on the recent financial crisis:
1. The facts are that one can just as easily blame the financial crash on an attempted tightening of regulation. That is, in the process of trying to rein in bank risk-taking by adopting risk-based capital regulations, regulators gave preference to highly-rated mortgage-backed securities, which in turn led to the manufacturing of such securities out of sub-prime loans.
2. The global imbalances that many of us thought were a bigger risk factor than the housing bubble did not in fact blow up the way that we thought that they would. The housing bubble blew up instead.
What he is referring to is a redefinition by governments in the Basel accords of how capital levels at banks should be calculated when determining capital sufficiency. I will oversimplify here, but basically it categorized some assets as "safe" and some as "risky". Those that were risky had their value cut in half for purposes of capital calculations, while those that were "safe" had their value counted at 100%. So if a bank invested a million dollars in safe assets, that would count as a million dollar towards its capital requirements, but would count only $500,000 towards those requirements if it were invested in risky assets. As a result, a bank that needed a billion dollars in capital would need a billion of safe assets or two billion of risky assets.
Well, this obviously created a strong incentive for banks to invest in assets deemed by the government as "safe". Which of course was the whole point -- if we are going to have taxpayer-backed deposit insurance and bank bailouts, the prices of that is getting into banks' shorts about the risks they are taking with their investments. This is the attempted tightening of regulation to which Kling refers. Regulators were trying for tougher, not weaker standards.
But any libertarian could tell you the problem that is coming here -- the regulatory effort was substituting the risk judgement of thousands or millions of people (individual bank and financial investors) for the risk judgement of a few regulators. There is no guarantee, in fact no reason to believe, the judgement of these regulators is any better than the judgement of the banks. Their incentives might be different, but there is also not any guarantee the regulators' incentives are better (the notion they are driven by the "public good" is a cozy myth that never actually occurs in reality).
Anyway, what assets did the regulators choose as "safe"? Again, we will simplify, but basically sovereign debt and mortgages (including the least risky tranches of mortgage-backed debt). So you are a bank president in this new regime. You only have enough capital to meet government requirements if you get 100% credit for your investments, so it must be invested in "safe" assets. What do you tell your investment staff? You tell them to go invest the money in the "safe" asset that has the highest return.
And for most banks, this was mortgage-backed securities. So, using the word Brad DeLong applied to deregulation, there was an "orgy" of buying of mortgage-backed securities. There was simply enormous demand. You hear stories about fraud and people cooking up all kinds of crazy mortgage products and trying to shove as many people as possible into mortgages, and here is one reason -- banks needed these things. For the average investor, most of us stayed out. In the 1980's, mortgage-backed securities were a pretty good investment for individuals looking for a bit more yield, but these changing regulations meant that banks needed these things, so the prices got bid up (and thus yields bid down) until they only made sense for the financial institutions that had to have them.
It was like suddenly passing a law saying that the only food people on government assistance could buy with their food stamps was oranges and orange derivatives (e.g. orange juice). Grocery stores would instantly be out of oranges and orange juice. People around the world would be scrambling to find ways to get more oranges to market. Fortunes would be made by clever people who could find more oranges. Fraud would likely occur as people watered down their orange derivatives or slipped in some Tang. Those of us not on government assistance would stay away from oranges and eat other things, since oranges were now incredibly expensive and would only be bought at their current prices by folks forced to do so. Eventually, things would settle down as everyone who could do so started to grow oranges. And all would be fine again, that is until there was a bad freeze and the orange crop failed.
Government regulation -- completely well-intentioned -- had created a mono-culture. The diversity of investment choices that might be present when every bank was making its own asset risk decisions was replaced by a regime where just a few regulators picked and chose the assets. And like any biological mono-culture, the ecosystem might be stronger for a while if those choices were good ones, but it made the whole system vulnerable to anything that might undermine mortgages. When the housing market got sick (and as Kling says government regulation had some blame there as well), the system was suddenly incredibly vulnerable because it was over-invested in this one type of asset. The US banking industry was a mono-culture through which a new disease ravaged the population.
Postscript: So with this experience in hand, banks moved out of mortage-backed securities and into the last "safe" asset, sovereign debt. And again, bank presidents told their folks to get the best possible yield in "safe" assets. So banks loaded up on sovereign debt, in particular increasing the demand for higher-yield debt from places like, say, Greece. Which helps to explain why the market still keeps buying up PIIGS debt when any rational person would consider these countries close to default. So these countries continue their deficit spending without any market check, because financial institutions keep buying this stuff because it is all they can buy. Which is where we are today, with a new monoculture of government debt, which government officials swear is the last "safe" asset. Stay tuned....
Postscript #2: Every failure and crisis does not have to be due to fraud and/or gross negligence. Certainly we had fraud and gross negligence, both by private and public parties. But I am reminded of a quote which I use all the time but to this day I still do not know if it is real. In the great mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon", the actor playing astronaut Frank Borman says to a Congressional investigation, vis a vis the fatal Apollo 1 fire, that it was "a failure of imagination." Engineers hadn't even considered the possibility of this kind of failure on the ground.
In the same way, for all the regulatory and private foibles associated with the 2008/9 financial crisis, there was also a failure of imagination. There were people who thought housing was a bubble. There were people who thought financial institutions were taking too much risk. There were people who thought mortgage lending standards were too lax. But with few exceptions, nobody from progressive Marxists to libertarian anarcho-capitalists, from regulators to bank risk managers, really believed there was substantial risk in the AAA tranches of mortgage securities. Hopefully we know better now but I doubt it.
Update#1: The LA Times attributes "failure of imagination" as a real quote from Borman. Good, I love that quote. When I was an engineer investigating actual failures of various sorts (in an oil refinery), the vast majority were human errors in procedure or the result of doing things unsafely that we really knew in advance to be unsafe. But the biggest fire we had when I was there was truly a failure of imagination. I won't go into it, but it resulted from a metallurgical failure that in turn resulted form a set of conditions that we never dreamed could have existed.
By the way, this is really off topic, but the current state of tort law has really killed quality safety discussion in companies of just this sort of thing. Every company should be asking itself all the time, "is this unsafe?" or "under what conditions might this be unsafe" or "what might happen if..." Unfortunately, honest discussions of possible safety issues often end up as plaintiff's evidence in trials. The attorney will say "the company KNEW it was unsafe and didn't do anything about it", often distorting what are honest and healthy internal discussions on safety that we should want occurring into evidence of evil malfeasance. So companies now show employees videos like one I remember called, I kid you not, "don't write it down."
The similarity between the the text of the recent NY report on fracking and the fictional state attack on Rearden Metal in Atlas Shrugged is just amazing.
Here is the cowardly State Science Institute report on Rearden Metal from Atlas Shrugged, where a state agency attempts to use vague concerns of unproven potential issues to ban the product for what are essentially political reasons (well-connected incumbents in the industry don't want this sort of competition). From page 173 of the Kindle version:
[Eddie] pointed to the newspaper he had left on her desk. “They [the State Science Institute, in their report on Rearden Metal] haven’t said that Rearden Metal is bad. They haven’t said that it’s unsafe. What they’ve done is . . .” His hands spread and dropped in a gesture of futility. [Dagny] saw at a glance what they had done.
She saw the sentences: “It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted. . . . The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted. . . . Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out. . . . Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties would be of value.”
“We can’t fight it. It can’t be answered,” Eddie was saying slowly. “We can’t demand a retraction. We can’t show them our tests or prove anything. They’ve said nothing. They haven’t said a thing that could be refuted and embarrass them professionally. It’s the job of a coward.
From the recent study used by the State of New York to ban fracking (a process that has been used in the oil field for 60 years or so)
Based on this review, it is apparent that the science surrounding HVHF [high volume hydraulic fracturing] activity is limited, only just beginning to emerge, and largely suggests only hypotheses about potential public health impacts that need further evaluation....
...the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in New York State....
The actual degree and extent of these environmental impacts, as well as the extent to which they might contribute to adverse public health impacts are largely unknown. Nevertheless, the existing studies raise substantial questions about whether the public health risks of HVHF activities are sufficiently understood so that they can be adequately managed.
Why is it the Left readily applies the (silly) precautionary principle to every new beneficial technology or business model but never applies it to sweeping authoritarian legislation (e.g. Obamacare)?
Today Apple Computer won the class-action anti-trust case filed against them. The plaintiffs were seeking a billion dollars in damages (after tripling) for a DRM system (Fairplay) that does not exist any more used on a device (the iPod) that Apple has pretty much phased out. These products were such a threat to the survival of competitors that they don't even exist any more. This is not atypical of how anti-trust often plays out in the marketplace, particularly in the technology sphere. Any day now I will be filing my lawsuit against Commodore for suppressing competition in the home computer market.
...The administration was committed to its upcoming deadlines many months ago, in some cases under court order, after postponing a number of the actions until after the 2012 or 2014 elections. Now that Obama is almost out of time, they’re coming all at once.
The whole "under court order" and "our of time" thing is an scam. The Administration colludes with environmental groups to sue them demanding some regulation the Administration wants but knows it can't get through the regular legislative or regulator process. The Administration immediately rolls over in the suit and settles, agreeing to implement the regulation it wanted in the first place. Then it can claim the settlement of the court suit "requires" them to proceed with these regulations. I can't tell if I should be embarrassed for the reporter writing this that they are so ignorant of how these suits work or angry that the reporting is essentially colluding in this deceptive practice.
I often wonder if Democrats really believe they will hold the White House forever. I suppose they must, because they seem utterly unconcerned, even gleeful in fact, about new authoritarian Presidential powers they would freak out over if a Republican exercised.
Coyote's first rule of government authority: Never support any government power you would not want your ideological enemy wielding.
Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
Net Neutrality is one of those Orwellian words that mean exactly the opposite of what they sound like. There is a battle that goes on in the marketplace in virtually every communication medium between content creators and content deliverers. We can certainly see this in cable TV, as media companies and the cable companies that deliver their product occasionally have battles that break out in public. But one could argue similar things go on even in, say, shipping, where magazine publishers push for special postal rates and Amazon negotiates special bulk UPS rates.
In fact, this fight for rents across a vertical supply chain exists in virtually every industry. Consumers will pay so much for a finished product. Any vertical supply chain is constantly battling over how much each step in the chain gets of the final consumer price.
What "net neutrality" actually means is that certain people, including apparently the President, want to tip the balance in this negotiation towards the content creators (no surprise given Hollywood's support for Democrats). Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it. Net Neutrality is corporate welfare for content creators.
Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)
Why should you care? Well, the tilting of this balance has real implications for innovation. It creates incentives for content creators to devise new bandwidth-heavy services. On the other hand, it pretty much wipes out any incentive for ISP's (cable companies, phone companies, etc) to invest in bandwidth infrastructure (cell phone companies, to my understand, are typically exempted from net neutrality proposals). Why bother investing in more bandwidth infrastrcture if the government is so obviously intent on tilting the rewards of such investments towards content creators? Expect to see continued lamentations from folks (ironically mostly on the Left, who support net neutrality) that the US trails in providing high-speed Internet infrastructure.
Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.
Postscript: There are folks out there who always feel better as a consumer if their services are heavily regulated by the Government. Well, the Internet is currently largely unregulated, but the cable TV industry is heavily regulated. Which one are you more satisfied with?
Update: OK, after a lot of comments and emails, I am willing to admit I am conflating multiple issues, some of which fit the strict definition of net neutrality (e.g. ISP A can't block Planned Parenthood sites because its CEO is anti-abortion) with other potential ISP-content provider conflicts. I am working on some updates as I study more, but I will say in response that
- President Obama is essentially doing the same thing, trying to ram through a regulatory power grab (shifting ISPs to Title II oversight) that actually has vanishly little to do with the strict definition of net neutrality. Net neutrality supporters should be forewarned that the number of content and privacy restrictions that will pour forth from regulators will dwarf the essentially non-existent cases of net neutrality violation we have seen so far in the unregulated market.
- I am still pretty sure the net effect of these regulations, whether they really affect net neutrality or not, will be to disarm ISP's in favor of content providers in the typical supply chain vertical wars that occur in a free market. At the end of the day, an ISP's last resort in negotiating with a content provider is to shut them out for a time, just as the content provider can do the same in reverse to the ISP's customers. Banning an ISP from doing so is like banning a union from striking. And for those who keep telling me that this sort of behavior is different and won't be illegal under net neutrality, then please explain to me how in practice one defines a ban based on a supply chain rent-division arguments and a ban based on nefarious non neutrality.
The AZ Republic rounds up some actual sick leave excuses people have tried:
"I accidentally got on a plane" was on the list of most dubious excuses for calling in sick to work, according to a recent survey by careerbuilders.com.
"I just put a casserole in the oven," "I need to tweak my botched plastic surgery," and "I broke my ankle after my leg fell asleep while I was sitting on the toilet," were among other hilarious, yet real, excuses that employers reported.
The survey found that 28 percent of employees called in sick when they were feeling well, down from 32 percent last year, and that one in four employers have caught an employee faking sick through social media.
There are more at the link.
We get very, very little of this, so we are lucky to have great employees. Since many of my employees are in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s (really), employee absences are generally real, quite serious health concerns. Besides, since most of my employees live on the work site, it is a little harder to fake this kind of thing.
It will be interesting what having the incentive of getting paid, in addition to just skipping out of work, will do to this.
Yesterday, when writing about the US Forest Service (USFS) restrictions on commercial photography in wilderness areas, I discussed the contradictions that make their policy problematic
The USFS has undermined their own argument by making exceptions based on the purpose of the filming. Apparently only commercial filming hurts ecosystems, not amateur photography. And apparently commercial filming that has positive messages about the USFS are OK too. Its just commercial filming that goes into a beer company ad that hurts ecosystems. You see the problem. If it's the use itself that is the problem, then the USFS should be banning the use altogether. By banning some photography but not all based on the content and use of that photography, that strikes me as a first amendment issue.
Despite working with the USFS on lands management every day, this policy was new to me. I hypothesized
[There is a] large group in the USFS that is at best skeptical and at worst hostile to commercial activity. They would explain these rules, at least in private, by saying that anything commercial is by definition antithetical to the very concept of wilderness that they hold in their heads, and that thus all commercial activity needs to be banned in the wilderness because it is inherently corrupting.
Reading Overlawyered, I saw this US Forest Service quote from the Oregonian to explain their position on commercial photography:
Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director, says the restrictions have been in place on a temporary basis for four years and are meant to preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness.
Close didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing. She didn't know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years.
She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain.
"It's not a problem, it's a responsibility," she said. "We have to follow the statutory requirements."
So it appears that the purpose of the Wilderness Act is interpreted by the USFS as "protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain."
But the Wilderness Act makes just a brief mention of commercial activity (It was written back in the day when laws did not have to be 2000 pages long, so you can read the who thing here). Its main purpose is to keep the lands wild and the ecology as free as possible from man's intervention
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by the Congress as "wilderness areas," and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness...
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
There is nothing in this that in any way shape or form should be affected by photography (unless the photography has some sort of heavy footprint, like making a Hollywood movie with hundreds of people and equipment and catering trucks, etc.).
The Wilderness Act is not primarily about protecting the Wilderness from commercial gain. It is about protecting the natural operation of ecosystems from intervention of any sort by man. Commercial activity is barely mentioned, and only as a minor aside deep into the legislation. But many US Forest Service employees have an antipathy to commercial activity and have sort of reinterpreted it in their mind as being an anti-commercialism act. Here are the only mentions of commercial activity in the law:
Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. ...
Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
In this usage (I am not an attorney so there is likely a long history of how the term "commercial enterprise" is understood in the law) my sense is this means that people are not to be conducting commerce -- trading goods and services for money- within the boundaries of the wilderness area. Essentially, they don't want a gift shop or McDonald's there. Grouped with the bit about roads, this is a paragraph about facilities and equipment and having a footprint.
So is a lone person taking pictures a commercial enterprise within the area? I doubt it. The actual commerce is conducted outside the park and there is nothing about photography that impairs the wilderness nature of the park. My interpretation is that taking pictures is OK but setting up a photography store is forbidden. But by the US Forest Service's definition, I suppose they should also ban people from collecting material for a book. If I walk through the wilderness area taking notes for a book I want to write, and then leave the area and write it and sell it, I am not sure how this is any different from commercial photography. And does this mean that I can't wear any clothes or bring any equipment into the wilderness area that I purchased commercially?
PS- Beyond a skepticism about capitalism, there is an other reason public lands people might want to shortcut the Federal Wilderness Act as "preventing commercial activity" -- it lets them off the hook. The Wilderness Act was about preventing meddling in the ecosystem (an impossible goal, but we will leave that for another day) and this applied to all groups -- commercial, government, educational. By shortcutting the Act as being about commerce, it helps folks forget that the same strictures should apply to agency personnel as well. I was up in Yellowstone listening to discussions of reintroduction of the wolf and the ongoing killing of thousands of non-native fish in Yellowstone Lake and various streams. The goal of these interventions is to reverse past interventions, but even so they strike me as violations of the Federal Wilderness Act.
With every item or service we buy, supply and demand are matched via prices. Except water. Because, for a variety of populist and politically scheming motives, no one wants to suggest "raising prices to consumers" as the obvious solution to reducing California water use in a drought, despite the fact that it would reduce demand in -- by definition -- the lowest value uses as well as provide incentives new sources and alternatives. So instead we get authoritarian stuff like this (press release from CA Senator Fran Pavely):
SACRAMENTO – Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1281 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) on Thursday to require greater disclosure of water use in oil production.
Oil well operators use large amounts of water in processes such as water flooding, steam flooding and steam injection, which are designed to increase the flow of thicker oil from the ground. In 2013, these enhanced oil recovery operations used more than 80 billion gallons of water in California, the equivalent amount used by about 500,000 households and more than 800 times the amount used for hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).
The impact of this use on domestic and agricultural water supplies is not known because oil companies are not required to disclose details about their water use
“At a time when families, business and farmers are suffering the effects of severe drought, all Californians need to do their part to use valuable water resources more wisely,” Senator Pavley said. “The public has the right to know about the oil industry’s use of limited fresh water supplies.”
Oil well operators have an available source of recycled water known as “produced water,” which is trapped deep underground and often comes to the surface during oil production. More than 130 billion gallons of produced water surfaced during oil production in California last year.
Many oil companies already recycle some of their produced water, but the amount is not known because of the lack of disclosure. Senate Bill 1281 requires oil well operators to report the amount and source of their water, including information on their use of recycled water.
The ONLY reason for such disclosure is because they want to impose some sort of autocratic command and control rules on oil industry water use -- not water quality mind you, but the amount of water they use. Add this to all the other creepy Cuba-style water actions, like having neighbors spy on each other to monitor water use, and you will understand why folks like Milton Friedman argued that free markets were essential to free societies.
In honor of the California water situation, I have created the second in my series of Venn diagram on economic beliefs.